Comparison of Two Dosages of Tolcapone Added to Levodopa in Nonfluctuating Patients with PD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The efficacy and safety of two dosages of tolcapone were compared in a 12-week crossover trial involving 118 nonfluctuating patients with PD on a stable dose of levodopa (L-Dopa). At trial onset, all patients received open-label tolcapone 100 mg three times daily for 4 weeks. At week 4, 116 eligible patients entered an 8-week double-blind treatment period and were randomized to receive tolcapone three times daily at either 100 mg (group 1; n = 58) or 200 mg (group 2; n = 58) until week 8, followed by the alternative tolcapone dosage until week 12. Ratings included Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Schwab & England, and patient diaries, assessed at baseline and at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. At week 4, the investigator's global assessment (IGA) of efficacy showed improvement in 76% of patients. The mean total daily L-Dopa dose and mean UPDRS scores for subscales II and III decreased significantly (p < 0.001). During the double-blind treatment period, IGA showed improvements at either or both dosages in 61% of patients; further changes in other efficacy variables were minimal and were similar with both tolcapone dosages. The most frequent adverse events were dopaminergic (nausea and dyskinesia); the most frequent nondopaminergic adverse event was diarrhea. The incidence of adverse events during double-blind treatment was slightly higher with tolcapone 200 mg three times daily (33%) than with tolcapone 100 mg three times daily (24%). The authors conclude that tolcapone dosages of 100 mg three times daily and 200 mg three times daily are well tolerated and equally effective in improving function in L-Dopa-treated nonfluctuating patients with PD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it